Fewer jury trials reduce public oversight and limit citizen participation in justice.
Jury trials, once a cornerstone of American democracy, are vanishing from the courtroom. These trials allowed ordinary citizens to weigh evidence, deliberate with neighbors, and decide the outcome of both criminal and civil cases. Today, that citizen role is shrinking, leaving legal decisions more often in the hands of judges or private agreements. Scholars have been warning about this trend for decades, and the numbers show a dramatic drop. In the 1960s, federal judges presided over many civil jury trials each year, sometimes more than ten. By 2024, the typical judge oversaw only one or two. Criminal cases show a similar pattern. In state courts, juries now resolve barely one or two percent of cases.
The jury has always played a bigger role than just deciding guilt or innocence. It allowed the public to see how the law works in practice and made courts accountable to the people. Alexis de Tocqueville, observing early America, noted that juries placed real power in the hands of citizens rather than government officials. Founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, made jury trials a key part of the justice system. Early Americans saw jury duty not only as protection against government overreach but also as a way to share the responsibility of governance with ordinary people.
Over time, however, juries have lost influence. In criminal law, the rise of plea deals has reduced trials. More than ninety percent of cases end this way, meaning judges never see evidence tested in public. Defendants often plead guilty to avoid harsher sentences, even when they might be innocent. Scholars warn this creates pressure to accept deals and reduces transparency in law enforcement. Civil cases show the same pattern. Mandatory arbitration in contracts and limits on damages have moved disputes out of public view. Procedural changes now steer cases toward settlements, with judges taking a more active role in directing how cases are handled.
The effects of this shift are significant. When trials happen behind closed doors or end in private agreements, the public loses a window into how justice is administered. Courts become less accountable, and private interests gain influence over outcomes. Legal scholar Suja Thomas argues that the changes benefit political and economic elites, concentrating power in ways that juries once helped balance. Cases that once involved community judgment now often resolve quietly, leaving ordinary citizens with little input.
Juries do more than decide cases. They encourage civic participation and build trust in institutions. Studies show that people who serve as jurors often become more engaged in their communities, including increased likelihood of voting. Trials also make disputes public and allow citizens to see evidence firsthand, debate issues, and reach decisions that reflect community values. These experiences give people a sense of responsibility and connection to the legal system.
Restoring jury trials to a more central role could strengthen democracy and public confidence in courts. While efficiency is often cited as a reason for fewer trials, public oversight and citizen involvement are lost in the process. As John Adams noted in the 18th century, representative government and trial by jury are essential protections for liberty. Without them, people risk losing both voice and influence over decisions that affect daily life.
The decline of jury trials in the United States is more than a legal concern; it is a matter of civic health. When fewer citizens participate in judging cases, the justice system becomes less open, and public trust declines. Reviving the jury as a meaningful part of the process could restore transparency, accountability, and engagement. Ordinary people serving on juries not only shape outcomes in individual cases but also help maintain the ideals of a society where power is shared and justice is public.
Join the conversation!